Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is only by putting the data into the public domain regularly that a culture of safety will be embedded in the NHS, something that we all want to see? Are the Government willing to envisage greater transparency in the whole area?

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in the light of the reorganisations that are going on the National Health Service, will the noble Lord assure us that the NPSA will continue at least for the life of this Parliament?

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Prime Minister himself said that the problem of global warming is probably the most important subject that any Government face. Indeed, it is probably even more significant than international terrorism. I make no apologies for tabling a redesigned amendment to try to persuade the Government that it is worth mentioning the subject in the Bill.
	I have said before in this House that the news on global warming is consistently bad. I paid some tribute to the Government over the weekend because they made an announcement in the press about micro-generation. That is one of the first optimistic signs I have seen in this country for a very long time, although one has an instinctive reservation. We await the details when the Government make a proper announcement to Parliament so that we can see what that one is all about.
	That announcement was, in effect, counter-balanced by research carried out by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, working with a colleague at the University of Arizona, which was announced at the end of the week and reported in The Times on Friday. It is remarkable that the Americans, who are supposed to be a very negative force on the subject of global warming, host a great deal of extremely helpful and useful research into the matter. This research was predicated on the possibility that existing models that take account of the effect of global warming on the melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice are inadequate and that sea levels may rise at a rate vastly greater than anything suggested at present. Of course, this is yet more research in a very wide field, and its findings may not be realised. If it were to happen, however, the work of Natural England would be dramatically affected, because the research was postulating the possibility in the coming century of a sea rise of 20 feet rather than perhaps a foot or two.
	It is worth noting that a study was done by, I believe, the Environment Agency on the impact of a tidal surge on top of a major spring tide in 2030. It is one thing if that takes into account the expected sea rise of a foot or two, but it is entirely another if it has to take into account a sea rise of several feet. More importantly, a number of other policies will be dramatically affected if—I stress the "if"—that research is at all valid, because the whole management of our coastlines will be dramatically affected. If such a sea rise does not dramatically affect the way in which Natural England works in those areas, I am not standing here addressing this House this afternoon. But I am addressing the House this afternoon because the effect will be dramatic.
	When I tabled my amendment on Report, the Minister said:
	"As a key element of the broader sustainable development agenda, climate change would be an important part in the context in which Natural England operates. There is no doubt that relevant action to mitigate climate change could fall within Natural England's general purpose"—[Official Report, 15/3/06; col. 1273.]
	Instead of making the containment of global warming a specific function of Natural England, the amendment would make it part of its general functions. It would provide the context in which the functions mentioned in the Bill would have to be carried out. In my view, the amendment is consistent with the words of the Minister on Report. He will not be surprised therefore if I suggest that he could accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, for once I find myself not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, partly because I do not really understand his amendment, which reads,
	"having regard to the need to contain global warming".,
	in the context of the "General purpose" of the Bill.
	I will give the noble Lord an example. Last year, there was a major wind farm inquiry near Tebay, between the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the English Lake District National Park. The Countryside Agency put in evidence, extremely strongly and extremely effectively, that on landscape grounds there was no case for this wind farm. That was a good, renewable project. I am glad to say that the Minister accepted evidence from others, in particular the Countryside Agency, and the wind farm was rejected. There will be wind farms up and down the country where the landscape question will be extremely important. There will be other questions. A moment ago, the noble Baroness mentioned Southwold and just down the coast there is Sizewell. I am fully behind the noble Lord on global warming; it is the most serious issue the world has to face in the next hundred years; and I believe nuclear power will be one of the main ways of dealing with it. But the siting of nuclear power stations will be a problem and Natural England has to keep its hands free so that it can participate in the wider national debate. For that reason, much though I respect the philosophy of the noble Lord regarding global warming, I cannot support his amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment would make it clear that in taking action to conserve, enhance or manage the natural environment, Natural England has regard to the need to contain global warming. I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to find a form of words on this important, even crucial, topic that we could accept. However, I have to disappoint him.
	As I said at Report, the Government expect Natural England, in common with all other public bodies, to play an active role in combating the effects of global warming, which is a huge issue for our time. Given the serious effects that global warming will have on the natural environment of England, I am absolutely confident that Natural England will have regard to this need, so far as it is able, in the exercise of its functions—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—for conserving, enhancing and managing the natural environment. So why can we not accept the amendment?
	It comes back to the role of Clause 2(1), where this amendment is now—for the first time, I believe—laid, in defining Natural England's purpose. Clause 2(1) is the general purpose—the core purpose—of Natural England. Far from being a preamble to paragraphs (a) to (e) of Clause (2)(2), it is the touchstone against which all Natural England's actions must be judged. The paragraphs are merely examples of things that are contained within the general purpose.
	Clause 2(1) also plays a crucial role in communicating Natural England's job to a wide range of its customers and other interested parties. It will certainly be the most quoted clause of the Bill. It will probably appear inside the front cover of every Natural England publication, in exhibitions, videos and university text books, among other places. I understand that that is precisely why the noble Lord wants to get a reference to global warming here. But there are a very large number of things which Natural England must or may have regard to. While the need to contain global warming would be high up anybody's list, we cannot accept that it should be the sole factor that is elevated to a position at the heart of Natural England's core purpose. If this amendment was carried, that would be the result.
	Our reservations are heightened by the wording used. "Containing" global warming is the key international challenge—the Kyoto protocol territory. Natural England will be able to make a more than useful contribution through the way it runs its operations, its comments on development plans and so on—the sort of decisions that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was talking about—but it will not be a large player in international development and energy policy. Natural England's contribution will lie more in drawing attention to the impact of global warming on the natural environment and facilitating its adaptation.
	I was asked who the lead player is. Defra agencies, such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, of course have an important role. Because this topic is so wide-ranging, however, a government department leads. That department is, of course, Defra.
	I hope that my brief remarks about the Government's expectations of Natural England—in having regard to the need to contain global warming—offer some reassurance to the noble Lord. He will be, as all of us will, a key monitor of Natural England's performance in this area. I am sure he will take us to task if he feels it falls short of its potential. On that basis I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for their support. If the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will forgive me for putting it this way, he could perfectly well support me. There is absolutely no problem in my mind for Natural England to have to make a judgment on the siting of a wind farm in an area of outstanding natural beauty and on the risk of global warming. It is a perfectly proper judgment to make. If Natural England does not feel that it is up to the task, and if the Minister were to deny that it was up to that task, then frankly we have all failed. So I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, says, but, with the greatest deference, it would be perfectly reasonable for that sort of judgment to be made. Somebody will have to make it. If Natural England is properly to care for the countryside, in its widest context, then it seems to me that it is a proper judgment that it has to make.
	The Minister made all sorts of statements about the importance of this subject in the work of Natural England. Of course, I entirely accept that Natural England will not be an international player in this matter, but it will be a serious player in all countryside affairs. There will not be one bit of the countryside in the whole of our United Kingdom that will not be affected in some way—maybe sometimes beneficially, but in other cases adversely—by this subject. The Minister has said so. Curiously enough, I understand his reluctance to see this subject mentioned in this clause, but I do not accept his judgment. I think his judgment is wrong. The amendment should be in. The subject is significantly important that we ought to put it there. Therefore we should test the opinion of the House.

Lord Bach: This amendment is our response to the debate on Report on an amendment which would have made rural communities a focus of Natural England's efforts to promote social and economic well-being through the management of the natural environment. We made it clear on Report that we could not accept sole reference to rural communities because Natural England has an important role in bringing the benefits of a healthy, well managed and accessible natural environment to urban communities as well. However, we agreed to look into it and, if we could find acceptable wording, bring back a government amendment at Third Reading. This is it and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised this issue on previous occasions. The amendment makes it clear that Natural England may work with local communities—both urban and rural—to secure social and economic benefits through management of the natural environment. I beg to move.

Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, noble Lords have already recognised the muddle that we seemed to get into at a previous stage of the Bill with the guidance that existed and then did not exist—it came and went. The matter was perhaps inadequately debated at the previous stage and therefore I shall speak for slightly longer than is appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.
	In supporting the amendment, I want to hark back to what some noble Lords may regard as ancient history, but which I think is a valid comparison—the position that English Nature found itself in on its establishment in the early 1990s. Noble Lords who recall the axing apart of the Nature Conservancy Council, which had covered the four countries of the UK until then, may recall that that act purported to be about devolution but was actually an act of neat revenge on the NCC, which had been a fairly trenchant champion of nature conservation until then. Indeed, it had "got in the way" of economic development on occasion and was reviled by some sectors of politics at that point. As a result, it suffered the penalty of being divided into four bits.
	The NCC was also penalised in a different way, in that it was given a strong political signal at that time that that was the sort of thing which happened to bodies that stood up for nature conservation—they got hacked into pieces and told to sit in a hole and not be particularly championing in their approach. Indeed, for the first five or six years of its existence, English Nature did behave like that. It was frightened of its own shadow and it was not particularly robust in supporting nature conservation. Its staff were, at best, confused about their role and, at worst, demoralised. They were not explicitly told that if they put their head out of the hole it would be shot off, but that was certainly how they perceived the lie of the land. Basically, we had a nature conservation body which, due to an implicit political signal, would not even say "Boo" to a goose, far less to anybody who wanted to damage nature conservation interests. I am not saying that that will be the position as regards Natural England on its establishment, but those events show the power of gentle political signals in one direction or another. They were very much the result of an implicit rather than an explicit signal from the government of the time.
	Successive leaderships of English Nature have changed that. They have made it clear that standing up for nature conservation is an okay thing to do. Indeed, we have seen some excellent work on the promotion of sustainable development through the conservation of nature done by English Nature since then. I believe that we run a double risk in not seeing either guidance to Natural England, or something in the Bill if guidance is not forthcoming. Without the right signal from government on the predominance of nature conservation, we run the risk that in some of the very rare, but nevertheless real, moments when there is considerable pressure from socio-economic development interests, harm will be done to nature conservation or the landscape. That is a problem. The double whammy is that, having argued consistently all the way through the Bill that such a signal should not be given, the Government almost send the implicit signal that impacted on English Nature at its birth—that balance at all times is the order of the day and that, even in the rare circumstances where there is significant and irreconcilable conflict, that balance should be maintained. The risk is that during the passage of the Bill we are giving the wrong signal to Natural England at its birth.
	On Report, the Minister talked about the risks of guidance. I declare an interest as chief executive of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is subject to 57 pages of guidance, which is renewed and reviewed every five years. At the agency's inception, the guidance contained some provisions that I was pretty sure we would be judicially reviewed on. I hesitated long and hard before I raised this issue on the Floor of the House today, because you can bet your bottom dollar that someone out there will read Hansard and come to the conclusion that we should be judicially reviewed on our sustainable development principle, but nevertheless we have not yet in our 10 years—it is our birthday this year—been so reviewed. To worry about guidance leaving an organisation wide open to frequent judicial review is probably not necessary.
	I am conscious that it is unlikely that the Minister will have a change of heart at this stage in the proceedings. A gentle signal given through guidance to the new body that biodiversity and landscape must, when push comes to shove and significant and irreconcilable conflict takes place between the purposes, take precedence is not a huge thing to ask for and does not expose the new organisation to risk. I hope that the Minister might delight us all by saying that he has changed his mind.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I have consistently opposed the inclusion of the Sandford principle in the general purposes of the Bill. At Second Reading the Minister said that the Government had considered this clause very carefully and they thought that they had come up with the right balance. I agree on that; we have the right balance. The Sandford principle, commendable though it is in relation to national parks, is not appropriate to this Bill, because Natural England will have a remit far wider than that of national parks, including urban areas. It is correct that the recreational and socio-economic interests should be balanced with conservation interests. It is not beyond the wit of the board of Natural England to come up with solutions when it comes up against conflict.

Lord Bach: My Lords, we return to conflict resolution. Whatever view we take of this, I am grateful that we have had debates on four occasions, including Second Reading, on this important topic. I am grateful, too, for the spirit in which those debates have been conducted. It will not surprise noble Lords to know that the Government remain opposed to including a clause of this type in the Bill.
	Natural England's purpose, and the powers it has to research, experiment, advise and fund, have been drafted to be broad and enabling and, in particular, to give it the flexibility and, above all, the independence to be an effective and, indeed, trenchant—a word heard often in this House—champion of the natural environment, taking action on a wide front. However, Natural England will, of course, make its decisions in the context of sustainable development. It will contribute to sustainable development by proactively seeking solutions which, while achieving environmental benefits, also provide long-term economic and social benefits, and avoid untoward economic and social impacts.
	With that remit at the forefront of our minds, I invite noble Lords to imagine that they are board members of Natural England. What sort of issues will come up for discussion and decision? I offer a few examples: first, deciding whether to fund a new initiative to improve the quality and accessibility of urban open space; secondly, advising government on their climate change action plan; thirdly, deciding how to target agri-environment funds to get the best value for money; fourthly, advising government on the management of a wild species whose population is out of control; and lastly, deciding whether or not to enter a statutory objection to a road scheme.
	Noble Lords will remember the lively debate on Report about the pros and cons of tourist development in the Cairngorms. It is of course unlikely that Natural England will comment on a development in Scotland, but it is not a bad example of the type of complex issue which will come before the board.
	Would the clause help members of the board to decide Natural England's position on the breadth of issues I have just listed? In each case, they would need to consider which of their objectives were in conflict. For example, is there a conflict between both social and economic well-being and environmental conservation, or just one of these? Perhaps there is a conflict between the study of the natural environment and conservation, or between the enhancement of the natural environment and its conservation. How might they resolve a conflict between the conservation of landscape and the protection of biodiversity, both of which are aspects of the natural environment? Having identified their conflicts, they must consider whether each one is "significant" and "irreconcilable". Thus, having reached a short list, they must decide exactly how to give "greater weight" to conservation and ensure that their decision is fully documented to show that it has taken into account all relevant considerations to resist challenge—possibly through judicial review. The effect of imposing such a statutory duty within Natural England's general purpose, far from being helpful to their deliberations as board members, would, in practice, be closer to a nightmare. The board would certainly need extremely good and attentive expert and legal advice to help to decide when a matter falls within the category of significant, irreconcilable conflict".
	It is not just the board of Natural England that must jump through those hoops. Every officer making a grant, issuing a licence or offering advice is likely to come under pressure from either the public or the affected customer to decide whether the situation at hand does or does not come within the parameters of this duty. That is likely to result in very detailed reasoning having to be recorded for all decisions that are made, which could add significantly to the workload of the new body.
	Perhaps we should ask why no other equivalent body has a conflict resolution clause—not English Nature; not the Countryside Agency; not the Countryside Council for Wales; not Scottish Natural Heritage; not even the Environment Agency itself. None has such a duty. It may not be a surprise but the technical briefing to your Lordships of those bodies that will make up Natural England states that,
	"the Bill aims to set up Natural England with a clear purpose but an integrated and measured overview of the natural environment. An independent NDPB should have the freedom to engage in debate with all parties and decide how it achieves its purpose, within a sustainable development context. The agency aims to be a robust champion for the natural environment and to exercise its judgement accordingly—it should not be told how to resolve any particular conflict".
	That is the Government's view, too.
	The case against a conflict resolution clause seems to be powerful. However, even if we are proved wrong, there remains the option of statutory guidance. As your Lordships know, and I make it abundantly clear again, we do not think that there is a case at the outset to issue guidance on the subject to Natural England. If, in time, it becomes clear, which we do not expect, that Natural England's decisions, or perhaps one subset of decisions, would benefit from such statutory guidance on how to resolve conflicts, we have the option of issuing such guidance, following consultation, as set out in Clause 15(3) of the Bill.
	We believe that Clause 2, when read together with the Explanatory Notes, will provide the right framework for the board of Natural England to decide how to address the diverse range of complex issues that fall within its remit. It will be one of the Government's key advisers on managing the natural environment. Our argument is that it would not be right to constrain the judgment of the board in the Bill in the way proposed in the amendment, or to expose it to the threat—however unlikely—of judicial review on this ground for every difficult decision that it and its officers take. It is for those reasons that I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 revisits the role of the Commission for Rural Communities with respect to rural-proofing. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke very convincingly to an amendment on this subject at Report. I responded that I was minded to accept the principles of his amendment, but that he and I should agree a slightly different form of words for the Bill.
	The noble Lord and I had what I think we would both describe as a very interesting and, I hope, very positive discussion on this issue, and the form of words set out in the amendment is one with which we are, I hope, both content.
	Amendment No. 5 makes a revision to Clause 19(c) that further clarifies the role of the Commission for Rural Communities with respect to rural proofing. It will widen the CRC's monitoring role to include looking at how bodies develop policy as well as implement it. That will enable it to make better judgments about how the rural-proofing process is undertaken by organisations—for example councils or RDAs—as they develop their strategies. It will also enable the CRC to provide government departments and other bodies with an impartial, expert view not only of the way in which their policies are meeting rural needs, but of whether their processes of policy development are taking proper account of the rural angle.
	Given the definition of "relevant persons" elsewhere in the Bill, Clause 19(c) empowers the CRC to undertake this role in respect of bodies in both the public sector and the private and voluntary sectors, where such bodies are concerned with any aspect of rural needs. All that will add weight to the CRC's advocacy and watchdog roles, and will make the CRC a body that must be listened to.
	The role of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in rural proofing will remain unchanged. Defra champions rural-proofing within government, taking the lead on setting rural-proofing policy and promoting rural-proofing to government bodies at all levels and providing advice to other government departments and delivery bodies on how best they can support delivery of the Government's rural agenda.
	Clarifying the role of the CRC in the way set out by this amendment will help both Defra and the CRC to work together to help to ensure that polices which affect rural areas are adequately rural-proofed and that the needs of people and business in rural areas are properly considered by policy makers. That will, I am sure, be good news to anyone concerned with the well-being and future of rural areas.
	In commending the amendment to the House, I put on record our appreciation of the persuasive support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for the CRC and other sections of the Bill. Rural-proofing has been a successful policy tool since its introduction in 2000, not least, if I may say so, because of the role which the noble Lord played during his time as chairman of the Countryside Agency. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for getting up at this stage to confirm our support for the amendment tabled by my noble friend. We had lengthy and useful discussions in Committee and on Report on this aspect of the Bill and there is a great deal of interest in it inside and outside this House. I set out at length—maybe at too much length on one occasion—the sound reasons why we could not accept the earlier amendments setting a cut-off date of 9 December 2003. Having said that, and without wanting to repeat those arguments, the Government recognise the cross-party strength of feeling on this issue. A huge amount of correspondence about this has been received not only by Members of Parliament but also by Members of this House. That correspondence has been reflected in the strength of feeling expressed here and in the other place. In recognition of that strength of feeling that the Government are prepared—reluctantly—to accept a cut-off date of 20 January 2003, which, as my noble friend said, represents the end of the consultation period. We feel that this date could be justified. I am sorry, I am wrong—

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords .

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords .

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the debates on this Bill have been marked by consensus and common sense and by the positive, constructive and patient approach of the Minister and her team. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his very positive approach.
	The Bill leaves this House looking outwardly much as it did at the outset, but some important changes have been made. As the Minister knows, although we have broadly supported the retention of Clause 1, we do have certain doubts.
	The courts will have to build up case law relating to this new concept of "desirable activity" and we cannot be sure precisely where that will lead. There is also a danger that it may be applied unevenly.
	However, a half-full cup seems preferable to an empty one, and I am very grateful to the Minister for amending Clause 1 by explicitly extending its terms to include breaches of statutory duty. I am particularly grateful for her comments on the new Clause 2. It was designed to clarify the law, not to change it. The intention, which I share with the Minister, is to change perceptions, behaviours and outcomes. In the new Clause 2 we are reasserting in statute that to apologise, to say sorry, is something separate and wholly different—legally as well as socially—from an admission of liability. I am particularly pleased that the Minister conceded that point.
	There are three distinct provisions: an apology shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty; an offer of treatment shall not of itself amount to such an admission; and an offer of other redress shall not of itself amount to such an admission. If this clause is accepted in another place, as I hope it will be, the effect on people's behaviour could be dramatic. So we have done our bit to restore some civility to society. I sincerely hope that the new Clause 2 will give a great boost to rehabilitation. I know that the Minister shares that view.
	The principle of mending the person must lie right at the heart of the civil justice system. I look forward to hearing from the ministerial working group, which the Minister chairs, on a whole range of measures on rehabilitation to put it at the forefront of government policy. We must stop it being a Cinderella service and we must ensure that it is joined up. There is often a postcode lottery, and rehabilitation gets caught up in the crossfire between opposing lawyers. Over 80 per cent of injuries suffered in road traffic accidents are soft tissue injuries that would benefit from immediate, swift and targeted treatment. Sadly, there is all too infrequently the opportunity of delivering that treatment to victims. I hope now, with the Government's announcement today, that a clear signal is sent to everyone that rehabilitation is a good thing, no "ifs" and no "buts".
	I make no further comment about Part 2 except that I hope that the Government's wish to see regulation in place by October will be fulfilled. We need a system of effective regulation and a regulator that possesses impartiality, independence and integrity. I know that the Minister shares that view. She is aware of my enthusiasm for the FSA model of regulation, and I know that she is still considering that aspect. In closing, I re-emphasise my hope—not just my hope—that this Bill is just part of a great interlocking jigsaw of measures that will kick the so-called compensation culture into touch for good. What an achievement that would be.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by the Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the European Council which took place in Brussels last Thursday and Friday. As the House is aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister normally makes the post-Council Statement to the House. I have been asked to convey his apologies. He is on an official visit to Australia and New Zealand.
	"The Hampton Court informal summit in October, during our presidency, set the framework for this spring Council in Brussels. The economic challenges for many, though not all, member states of the Union are severe. Despite significant progress since the Lisbon Agenda was launched, there are still around 20 million out of work. In some states, in contrast to the United Kingdom, unemployment is around 10 per cent, and almost one in five young people is without a job.
	"The British Government know that there is only one way to get Europe back to work and to deliver social justice in a global economy. We base this not on theory, but on solid evidence. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor pointed out in his Budget speech, in 1996 we had the lowest income per head of all G7 countries. Today, we are second only to the United States. We have grown more quickly, created more jobs and provided more social benefits than most other member states. We have done so by liberalising markets, by increasing our competitiveness and by investing in the future, including in our public services. The European response to globalisation must emphatically not be a return to old-fashioned protectionism by another name.
	"Specific elements of the Hampton Court agenda were energy, research and development, and universities. First, energy: the case for a more liberal energy market is overwhelming. Gas and electricity prices in the period 1996 to 2004 here in the United Kingdom fell much faster than they had done in EU states which have kept their energy markets closed. So consumers in those countries will gain from a functioning internal market, and so will consumers in this country. We currently do not have access to the gas we would have in a more sensitised market. So one of the first achievements of the Lisbon Agenda back in 2003 was the decision to liberalise energy markets by 2007. Last week, the European Council reaffirmed that timetable.
	"Completion of the internal market is one of four elements in a new approach to European energy policy. At the summit we agreed the programme relating to the other three areas, too: to intensify diversification of supply; to promote environmental sustainability; and, by the next European Council, to develop a strategy for dealing with countries outside the EU. The Council asked the Commission to present a strategic energy review on a regular basis, starting in 2007.
	"Next, research and development: rising economies, such as China and India, are investing heavily in science and technology. The way for Europe to compete is to be ahead of them, and to lead the knowledge economy rather than protecting old and uncompetitive industries. So the summit agreed the establishment of a European research council. This body will be run by scientists and its purpose will be to promote excellence in European research. We would expect universities and research communities in Britain to benefit.
	"And linked to that is the third area: increased investment in universities, where currently only two of the top 20 universities in the world are European—both, I should say, in the United Kingdom. The European Union has to produce enough graduates of the right calibre, and to improve links between business and universities, if we are going to open up and prosper in new global markets.
	"In addition to the Hampton Court agenda, the British presidency had taken forward valuable work on better regulation and on the services directive. There was further progress on both these areas at the Council.
	"The summit tasked the Commission to report by the end of 2006 on measurable EU targets for removing administrative burdens on business, and particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as to press ahead with the reforms undertaken during our presidency: more simplification of existing EU legislation, further withdrawal of unnecessary or outdated legislation, and more effective use of impact assessments.
	"The summit also agreed a way forward on the services directive. This directive will be of great assistance to British service companies and to opening up Europe properly to a single market in services. Let me be plain. It is not everything we wanted, but a year ago some European leaders were declaring the directive dead and buried. It is not. It will represent a significant advance in the process of making Europe globally competitive.
	"It is customary that the spring European Council concentrates largely on the economic agenda of the European Union. However, all member states shared a deep concern about the recent elections in Belarus. We agreed a statement which condemned the actions of the Belarus authorities in arresting peaceful demonstrators early on the morning of Friday 24 March. We also restated our view, based on the assessment by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, that the elections were fundamentally flawed.
	"The European Union is now deciding on restrictive measures that it will take with respect to the Belarus authorities. President Lukashenko did not escape responsibility. The European Union applauds those who stood up for democracy against the odds and is determined to support civil society and the Belarussian people.
	"The situation in Belarus stands in stark contrast to the situation in neighbouring Ukraine. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said that yesterday's elections there,
	'enabled voters to make informed choices between distinct alternatives and to freely and fairly express their will',
	and that they therefore,
	'further consolidated the breakthrough in the conduct of a democratic election process'.
	This is a testament to the remarkable progress made in Ukraine since the orange revolution of 2004.
	"Finally, as I am on my feet on European Business, the House will wish to be aware that earlier today I issued a Written Ministerial Statement in respect of the successful conclusion of the Gibraltar constitutional reform negotiations on 17 March. The new constitution, which will be put before the people of Gibraltar in a referendum, strengthens the links between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom, and thoroughly modernises the relationship between us, which I hope will be as welcome to the people of Gibraltar as it will to the United Kingdom.
	"Last week's summit was a further step towards a more outward-looking European Union that delivers concrete benefits to its citizens. There is still a long way to go. The Government are in no doubt that Britain's best interests lie in a European Union that is open to the world, competitive and confident. We will continue to pursue that agenda vigorously. I commend this Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating this fairly detailed Statement. After the rumpus at the summit about language, perhaps I should make it clear that I shall respond in English and not in French—I say that without apology. We welcome the comment at the end of the Statement about Gibraltar. That is very good news, and certainly shows progress.
	As to the main body of the summit, the presidential conclusions asserted that the Lisbon strategy is being relaunched again—and again and again. Looking at the language in the conclusions of the presidency, one cannot help feeling that the lesson has not really been learnt by all governments—maybe not by any EU government—that planning for growth top down by more and more hopeful strategies of this kind is a hopeless cause. Economic growth and a "dynamic environment"—to take another phrase from the presidency conclusions—come from deregulation, more competition and light taxation. Those are the sort of things that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now in the habit of pointing out once a week. He is absolutely right to do so.
	Of course, we are totally in favour of increased competition throughout Europe, but is it not now, sadly, clear that some governments are very near the limits of the powers that they are prepared to surrender to higher pan-European or EU-wide authority? One points to the example of the Spanish resistance to the takeover of Endesa, the French resistance—to the fury of Mr Berlusconi and the Italians—to the takeover of Suez by Enel, the Luxembourg and French resistance to the merging of Arcelor, their global steel giant, and, in effect, the block—it is very nearly a block—on further progress with the services directive.
	The tendency for a return to some degree of economic nationalism seems to be expressed no more vividly than when it comes to the attempts by the European Union to develop a common energy policy. Of course, that has been a virtual fiasco. All that has emerged from the summit, as we have heard from the Statement, is a strategic energy review, which is a poor outcome for such high-flown hopes. Is not practical co-operation in Europe, which is necessary in our region on energy matters, all covered very thoroughly already by the International Energy Agency? Everything to do with the stockholding of oil, the storage facilities for gas, the common approaches to safety and the regulation of nuclear facilities is covered by the IEA and has been for many years. I once had the honour of chairing that organisation, so I can confirm that.
	Secondly, governments are reluctant to cede strategic power in areas as sensitive politically as daily supplies of gas, electricity, light, warmth, transport, gasoline, petrol supplies and so on for the very simple reason that failure or interruption in any of those areas can involve an instant thumbs-down from the voters, who naturally want people close by their own governments to be held to account rather than to be told that it is all the fault of some more remote authority.
	I would like to have heard in the Statement much more about the United Kingdom. Should the UK not be very careful and steer clear of the José Manuel Barroso plan for closer EU-Russian co-operation on energy links and gas supplies? The other day, we learnt from bitter experience that when the going gets tight, particularly in gas markets, the continental monopolies—which we hope will be replaced by competition, but that is only a hope—with a certain amount of political pushing and shoving, make their markets the priority for Russian gas, rather than ours. Besides, in the longer term all the energy planning, including the Government's own planning, forecasts that in a few decades the UK will not rely on Russian gas—we will have other sources—whereas, by 2030, France will rely on Russian gas to the extent of 30 per cent, Germany by about 80 per cent and Austria by 95 per cent.
	In short, do we not have a totally different pattern of energy needs evolving in the future compared with large parts of continental Europe? We must maintain the freedom to make our own arrangements and to maintain our own patterns of diversity; we must not be locked into some new bloc ambitions for a Europe-wide energy policy.
	As for the services directive, which I have already mentioned, what progress was made? The Statement talks about a way forward, but what is the way forward? The conclusions of the presidency say that,
	"the internal market of services has to be fully operational while preserving the European social model".
	Those two things are incompatible, as we have all discovered. So what is going to give if there is to be progress—as there should be and as undertakings have been given that there should be—on the realisation and fulfilment of the services directive?
	We are bound to be disappointed that there is no further word on the constitution, whether it is dead or about to be replaced, or whether Ministers, including British Ministers, are putting forward alternatives. Have they put forward any alternatives? I do not know. Certainly other countries are busy proposing all kinds of arrangements to replace the old ones or to carry forward the governance of Europe by different means. We would very much have liked to have seen signs of more vigorous proposals by our own Ministers and the Foreign Office about how we see the governance of Europe in the future and how we want it to be shaped in a more fruitful direction than it is going at present.
	I would also have liked to hear a little more—although I realise that this was mostly an economics-focused summit—about the failed Iran diplomacy and where we go next in that frightening scenario. It would have been useful to hear more how the EU is going to handle Hamas, which is about to take government, and the funding dilemma there. How and to what point do we support it if it continues with its present propositions and stance?
	One cannot avoid the conclusion that much of this summit is sadly out of touch with the great issues that the European people and the world now face. It would have been good to see our Ministers take a more forward, creative and imaginative position on how Europe should now move. There is an overwhelming sense that in Europe we are allowing things to drift away from us, while the Prime Minister says that they are going our way—they are not. We would like to have seen Ministers being more vigorous and we feel that once again they have failed on this front.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments and questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asks what I was saying about resources. One of the initial steps that the new RPA chief executive suggested to us last week, and which we have taken up, was that we should focus more resources in the RPA on making the 2005 payments as fast as is legally possible. The RPA is a large organisation, as we have heard; it has centres all over the country. A lot of resources have already been applied to payment of the subsidy. He is suggesting that more resources should be applied to them from within the RPA. We agree with him.
	At the very last stage before payment it was necessary for there to be six different authorisation processes before payments could be sent. The new chief executive suggested that that number could be decreased to two. That has been implemented at once.
	As for whether we will have more information by the time of our debate on Thursday—I believe that the other place also is debating this issue, on Wednesday—the new chief executive is coming forward later this week to the Secretary of State and me with other proposals. He has, after all, been in position for a total of only 11 days. I hope we will be able to say something about his proposals in those debates, but I cannot guarantee that.
	The noble Baroness asked about the 15 May deadline for farmers to apply under the 2006 scheme. The 2006 scheme literature, including sample forms, is already on the RPA website. Forms pre-populated with data will be distributed shortly. Of course we appreciate that some farmers would wish to have additional certainty on the detail of their entitlements before submitting a claim for next year, but we can see little chance of amending the deadlines which are set in legislation agreed by all EU Agriculture Ministers. But we will see what we can do to deal with the problem that she raises.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what assistance they propose to offer to the Democratic Republic of Congo to facilitate the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
	My Lords, in asking the Government what assistance they propose to offer to the Democratic Republic of Congo to facilitate the promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law I intend to focus on the situation in that huge and suffering country in these next weeks and particularly after the elections that should take place before the end of June this year.
	I cannot rehearse to your Lordships the terrible experience of the peoples of what is now the DRC, subjected successively to the kleptocracy of King Leopold, to life as a Belgian colony, to 30 years of the vicious, west-supported dictatorship of Mobutu, and then to the appalling history of the past 10 years or so in which well over 3 million people have been killed or have died of disease or as refugees, and millions more have been—to use a euphemism—displaced. Nor can I paint more than a sweepingly general picture of the DRC's situation today.
	There is hardly a hint of a footprint of government, national or regional, in terms of services to the people across that vast country—larger than western Europe—anywhere after three years of the Transitional National Government; and this notwithstanding the constant advisory engagement with them of the committee of the ambassadors, the UK's prominent among them, of those states most engaged with aid and technical assistance.
	The DRC has the largest currently deployed UN Force, MONUC, with some 17,000 personnel. MONUC's mandate is to disarm, demobilise, resettle or repatriate the bewildering number of armed groups, to integrate some of them into a new national army and to train it, and to assist this force to defend local people and to combat those who refuse to come out of the forests. But in many parts of the vast country militias continue to fight each other, the national army—which is as yet far from a reliable or disciplined force—or MONUC; whether for minerals, or for territory, or as proxies for neighbouring states that arm them, to settle tribal scores, or simply to survive.
	Many hundreds of thousands of people have been freshly displaced this year both in the south and all up the east side of the country. That implies constant further attrition of the sparse and fragile provision, largely by the churches, of schools and health clinics. I doubt whether more people are killed each day in Iraq than in the DRC. The first appearance before the International Criminal Court in The Hague at the end of last week of a Congolese indicted for war crimes is a most important step; but there are many others much more prominent, and with as much if not more blood on their hands, than Thomas Lubanga; and it is vital that MONUC and Congolese forces work at bringing them too to justice.
	Elections of a president and of a legislature, which will bring into effect a new constitution, should take place by the end of June: an immensely complex task for the Independent Electoral Commission which is very substantially supported by the EU. But on the closing date last week for the registration of candidates, two of the four chief protagonists were not among the four who had registered as candidates for the presidency; and there were many fewer candidates registered for election to the legislature than there are seats in it. The latter may be down to difficulties with communications and travel—both, as I know at first hand, are extremely difficult—but the former, much more seriously, shows that some individuals and parties are still jockeying for position and are dangerously suspicious of the electoral process and of each other. The commission has extended the registration period until 2 April.
	It is most welcome that in these circumstances the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, spent three days last week in the DRC. According to reports he saw everyone he could usefully see, both privately and publicly, and in Kisangani as well as in Kinshasa; he said clearly and toughly to the politicians that the elections had to take place and that they owed it to the people to ensure that they did and to abide by the results; and he committed himself to the continued presence of MONUC after the elections because it still has so much to do.
	I welcome too the Council of the EU's decision on Thursday to deploy a German-led EU force to support MONUC through the period of the elections. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be some British participation in that deployment and that our ambassador in Kinshasa, with whom I had a stimulating meeting there last summer, is doing all he can to follow up and to reinforce the persuasive activity of the Secretary-General.
	Looking ahead to the period after the elections and supposing for a moment that they yield a clear result and one that is largely accepted, I hope that the Minister will reassure the House about the intentions of the UK, with its EU and Security Council colleagues. How are we planning to support and encourage the new Government in approaching the unimaginably large agenda that will face it? The scale of the issues it will face is simply unimaginable.
	Specifically and briefly, will we recognise, and hold partners to recognise, that this is the beginning of a long haul and that there must be no disengagement from support for the DRC and collaboration, to the greatest possible extent, with its government? Will we try to continue the mission of the committee of ambassadors under another guise? Will we—this is a critical point—encourage the new president, whoever he is, to be as inclusive as possible of the losers in the election in his government? Will we support at the UN the continuation of MONUC and the further development of its mandate and play our part in the still necessary struggle to control the inflow of arms into the DRC? Will we encourage international and DRC support for the further development into the DRC of the International Criminal Court process, with an eye especially on General Laurent Nkunda among those still to be hunted down and brought to justice?
	Will we put much more effort and resources, with UN and EU partners, into assisting the DRC to gain control for its people's sake of its vast mineral resources and to police what is still at present their largely criminal exploitation? Will we take appropriate action both against neighbouring states and their nationals and against first-world companies and individuals, Britons among them? Will we try to ensure that the peoples of the DRC, longing for security and peace after 130 years or so of horror, see some real "democracy dividend" from these elections—and soon?
	Lastly—and I do not expect more from the Minister in response to this question than an assurance, but let it be copper-bottomed, that the Government and their partners have contingency plans in place: what if the DRC, in these next months, should after all fall back—as it only too possibly may—into large-scale regional conflict and devastation, which could have—no, would have—very serious effects indeed more widely across the region?
	I look forward very much to other speeches and to the Minister's response.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester on securing this debate. The issues covered are never far from the attention of your Lordships' House or hearts in our many debates on Africa. But it is important and timely to be concentrating tonight on the Democratic Republic of Congo. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Rawlings, I apologise for her absence from this debate today.
	In preparing for this speech—I have had to do a lot of preparation for tonight's debate because I knew very little about the DRC before I picked up this brief—I have undertaken some grim reading, as the right reverend Prelate outlined, of a tragic history and the aftermath of an almost forgotten emergency at the heart of Africa. As so many of your Lordships have pointed out, more than 4 million people have died in the past four years alone in what the International Rescue Committee has called,
	"the most deadly conflict in terms of its impact on civilian population since the Second World War".
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us of that.
	More than 100,000 people have been displaced, and the Lancet estimated in January this year that 38,000 people die every month. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, described that graphically when he quoted Kofi Annan, saying,
	"if you look at the figures and the extent of the suffering cumulatively . . . you probably have a Tsunami in this country every six months, in terms of the dead and dying".
	Perhaps the most shocking description came from the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
	Outright civil war officially ended three years ago and the long awaited transitional Government have been in place since July 2003. They have brought a degree of stability to the DRC and have so far remained intact, despite reports of growing political tensions. However, factional conflicts continue, particularly in the east of the country.
	As noble Lords have highlighted, the human rights situation remains shocking. Indeed, it is one of the worst in Africa, with atrocities against civilians being committed daily—none more so than in the Ituri district in the north-east of the DRC. Militia and foreign groups have taken part in rape, torture, cannibalism, forced labour, abduction of women and children and illegal detention. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report, among others, also highlights that there is evidence of internally displaced people being used as human shields. Meanwhile, poorly fed and unpaid Congolese soldiers often harass local populations, imposing illegal taxes, stealing and using sexual violence.
	I could not refer to the human rights situation without raising the plight of the women and children of this war torn region. More than four in every 10 children in the DRC die before their first birthday, around half of all children do not attend primary school, and in conflict-affected areas may have been recruited or abducted into armed groups and forces.
	In the east many children have become separated from their families by the conflict. The figures for this one region alone were 2,797 children in 2003 without family unity, physical security and protection. The breakdown in social structures increases the opportunities and potential for gender-based violence. Sexual exploitation, such as rape, is committed as a systematic weapon of war to deliberately humiliate and break community cohesion. Adolescent girls are often the most vulnerable and are put under enormous pressure to support themselves, particularly in refugee camps.
	The short-term reality of the situation is bad enough, but the consequences of gender-based violence can be long term and devastating. There is a marked decline in health due, among other things, to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, forced and unwanted pregnancies, which can lead to dangerous termination practices, and a high maternal and infant mortality rate because of a lack of infrastructure and healthcare. The babies born as a result of rape often face a serious risk of being abandoned, and daughters can be ostracised from their communities owing to the shame of rape or becoming pregnant outside wedlock, which only further increases their vulnerability.
	These problems are not restricted to the DRC alone; it is a cross-border issue that also involves Rwandan children and Sudanese and Ugandan refugees. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted, children, predominantly based in urban areas of the DRC, are also experiencing the horrifying phenomenon of being accused of witchcraft. Many are institutionalised in childcare homes or revivalist churches, which, Save the Children reports, often leaves them open to abuse.
	I am sure the Minister shares my concerns regarding the plight of women and children in this region; I hope he will be able to tell us how the Government are helping to raise awareness of these issues at local and national level in the DRC. Promoting education and preparing children and families, who have witnessed and experienced so much, for reunification will be a vital and difficult task. Central to this task will be the charities and NGOs working tirelessly within the DRC.
	One of the more pleasant findings in my weekend research was the work of the Cambridge-based charity SOS Children. Fifteen years ago it opened the gates of a children's village, a school and a kindergarten in the troubled eastern province of South-Kivu, and in 1997, it established an emergency village in Uvira to house war orphans and abandoned children. Its work is truly unique when compared to other NGOs. It pioneered the first family-based approach to childcare through the creation of children's villages and is now the world's largest orphan charity, with every penny that it raises for a specific project going directly to that project, with nothing deducted for administration purposes.
	Sometimes it is these small grass-roots projects that make all the difference. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships' House that the Government will listen to organisations such as SOS Children and that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because their experience is worth everything.
	I have painted a bleak picture of life for just one section of society, but there is a dim light at the end of the tunnel. We on these Benches welcome the support that the UN, the EU and Her Majesty's Government are providing in terms of resources and advice. We must recognise the major logistical challenges of the election. Kofi Annan highlighted that the DRC is at a critical stage in its history. It is clear that there is still a very long way to go, but the success of the constitution referendum last year gives hope. If a stable enough environment can be maintained, then this could be a serious step to cementing the transition from bloody civil war to peace and democracy, and providing the people with much-needed accountability, justice and the chance to rebuild their lives. I echo the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, on hoping for fairness in the forthcoming elections.
	The transitional government have been slow in key areas, particularly the integration of the army, police force, and promotion of the rule of law. As your Lordships have highlighted, it is imperative that security is brought to the entire population. Impunity has been a problem exacerbated by the decision of the Congolese authorities to promote militia leaders into senior army positions. Although the prosecution of Thomas Lubanga by the International Criminal Court for enlisting child soldiers, among other crimes, is a significant step forward, mobile tribunals are also starting to provide some basic work in some of the more rural areas. I hope the Minister can further update us on progress on this issue and on what steps the Government are taking to help to promote the mind shift that is needed as the rule of law is reintroduced to a land that has seen only the rule of the powerful and the armed for so long.
	It is clear that there is still much to be done in a country where stability and peace are fragile at best. We will watch carefully how the DRC copes with the challenges ahead, such as the need for efficient control of natural resources, good management of state enterprises, a fully national development policy that excludes no region and restoration of state authority over the entire country. But get that right and it will help to foster peace, stability and reconsolidation throughout the Great Lakes region and, I hope, beyond. Recent debates on the Sudan and Uganda have emphasised how much this is needed. I am sure the Minister will reiterate the importance of communicating with the DRC's neighbours in the run-up to the elections. This passionate debate has emphasised your Lordships' desire to see all the people of the DRC, particularly women and children, realise the future that has been denied them for so long.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester for initiating an important debate. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Giddens, Lord Alton and Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton. I am particularly grateful for the understanding that your Lordships' House has shown of the complexity of the situation in the DRC, emphasised, a few moments ago, by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. As the right reverend Prelate said at the beginning, this is a very long haul. We have discussed much detail this evening, but the broad issues are also important.
	This is a critical moment, not just for the Congolese, but for the future of Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether we remain totally committed to Africa. I believe we are. He also wondered whether it is mentioned enough. I met with all the heads of our missions serving in Africa today to discuss this and other issues. We hope that the Congolese people, with help from the international community, will hold their first free and fair elections in June. I emphasise the point that each life in the DRC is as important as a life anywhere else and indeed each vote in the DRC in a democratic election is as important as a vote anywhere else. This could be the first genuinely accountable and democratic government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has just pointed out, tens of millions of people across the whole Great Lakes region would benefit. If they get it wrong, we could easily see a return to the horrific and tragic conflict of the past, which is still there in a somewhat subdued form—a conflict that has plagued this region for over a decade. So the stakes are very high. It is right to ask what we, the British Government, are doing to help to secure success.
	The breadth of discussion we have had this evening serves to underline the vast scale of the problem with which we are dealing. Let us see what those problems are. We are talking about a country of about 60 million people, the size of western Europe, without any real roads or infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, described it and some of the horrors that have taken place in parts of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, more than 4 million people have died as a direct result of the recent war in the DRC. Who knows, the numbers may be very much larger. That is 1,200 people every day dying from disease, malnutrition and through violence, over and above normal mortality rates. Over 80 per cent of the population live in abject poverty. The numbers of internally displaced people—I do not much like the expression either—are the highest anywhere in the world after Darfur and northern Uganda. Latest UN figures suggest that there are 150,000 displaced people in the north of Katanga Province alone and 1.5 million in the DRC overall. The war of course compounded the DRC's problems. It brought insecurity and instability across the country and it shattered the already collapsing infrastructure.
	These raw figures show just how important it is that we get the DRC right, to relieve the long-suffering Congolese population. A stable, secure and prosperous DRC will also lay the foundations for peace and economic development in the Great Lakes region. If we want Africa to do better and to thrive then the DRC has to survive and thrive.
	So, what are we doing? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and others asked that question. The United Kingdom is playing an increasingly influential role in the DRC. We are now the biggest bilateral European donor. This financial year we allocated £55 million for programmes to consolidate the peace and support the elections. From our bilateral support, we have earmarked £65 million for emergency humanitarian relief over the next two years. We are an important member of the CIAT—the international mechanism based in Kinshasa which has supported the transitional process. Through the UN Security Council, we have secured what we believe is the right mandate for the UN forces on the ground. We are strong advocates at the Security Council. I was there last Monday and we were emphasising that MONUC's efforts to protect civilians and support elections is absolutely imperative. The European Commission is also making several hundred million euros are available each year: €149 million for the election process alone, constituting over half the total cost. Much more of the money is now going to EU police missions in Kinshasa: €1.6 million to the EU advisory and assistance mission for security reform; €205 million on priority areas in the fight against poverty, the cause of healthcare, capacity building throughout the transition to democracy and macroeconomic support; and €105 million on external debt alleviation. We believe that these steps, including the mandate for the MONUC forces to protect the investments are vital to allow it to respond robustly and flexibly, including in its requirement to protect civilians.
	As in other parts of the world, in the DRC the UK is a strong voice. We are calling for democratic and accountable government, with respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Congolese Government and non-governmental organisations listen to us. The Congolese population respects us and have paid generous tribute for the work that has been done. But, for all that, the challenge, as we have all said this evening, is immense.
	There are no democratic traditions in the Congo. The last real elections were in the 1960s, and they were not as real as any of us would expect here. Few people voted in those elections, and still fewer of them are alive today. But it is clear too that the Congolese people have a real desire to have their democratic voices heard. Amazingly, as we have heard this evening, 25 million people registered to vote in this huge country without roads, railways or any other tangible infrastructural links. We now need to ensure that those 25 million voters get to vote and have faith in the process that they are participating in and in the result that the process will deliver.
	We have been working with civil society and through NGOs on the ground, to encourage the Congolese to take greater ownership of the election process. My noble friend Lord Giddens and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, have urged that on me this evening. I wholly support their view. We must ensure that these are fair elections, and our endeavours must go into ensuring that. We must encourage the people of the Congo to demand that the outcome is representative and credible—it is not us on their behalf; it is theirs, and they must demand it for themselves.
	In our contacts with the politicians who are taking part in the elections, we have also stressed that the new government will need to be inclusive and representative—another vital point made this evening. The government need to be accountable to the people who elected them; only then will they be truly legitimate in the eyes of the Congolese people and the international community.
	On top of delivering messages, we have put £10 million into the UN trust fund to support the process and £9 million into security directly around the elections, making us the largest bilateral donor to the election process.
	As recent news reports have made plain, political tensions remain very high—they are possibly getting higher—in the Congo. We have been playing—I have had the opportunity myself to play—an active part in mediating between the different political groupings to overcome the current political blockages, where some people are feeling somewhat excluded from the process. The next major challenge will be the elections themselves—helping the Congolese to stick to their agreed timetable and to deliver a result which is credible—and credible to the population as a whole. Part of what we need to do, as my noble friend Lord Giddens said, is to ensure that as they look forward they see real hope of economic regeneration, making it all worthwhile.
	There have been significant changes since the war ended. There are commercial flights linking east to west and the national phone network is back in place—I do not know whether it runs all the time, but I believe it is pretty good now compared with what it has been. We have seen an increase in international and multinational investment; roads which had previously been blocked or were insecure for other reasons, are open, and the River Congo has been opened up to commercial traffic. The United Kingdom's focus on economic regeneration lies in these areas so that the DRC can pull itself out from the collapse and the devastation it has experienced.
	The international community is focusing on rebuilding the DRC's roads, ports, and customs structures and on regenerating the old parastatal natural resource and mining companies. Private investment as well as donor assistance is needed to bring off all these changes. The International Monetary Fund in its most recent report shows how some of this work is now having an effect on poverty reduction. The growth facility, which has been uneven since mid-2004, is showing some signs of improvement. But there is obviously a great deal to be done. One thing that must be done is to overcome corruption in some of the things that have been got going again, in order to ensure that they deliver properly.
	Those will be among the biggest challenges the day after the election, but so will the "winner takes all" mentality, because it will not offer the inclusive and representative government that will make for long term stability, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said. All key actors, whether they have won or lost in the elections, need to have a stake in the peace that will follow if we are successful, and in the new government. We have made these views clear to the key Congolese politicians and groups.
	Our aim in a democratically elected and accountable government will be to change the dire human rights situation in DRC, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we also outlined in the FCO's annual report. But as we have heard in the House today, the situation remains one of the worst anywhere in the world. Foreign and Congolese militia groups and even the DRC's own forces are responsible for many of the abuses that take place. We have heard of the terrible incidents of rape, killing and pillage of entire villages, particularly in the east of the country. The plight of Congolese children accused of witchcraft must be of particular concern to us all, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. I shall refer to the work that we are doing with the police and judiciary in that regard.
	As elections come closer, we are seeing a rise in rhetoric inciting ethnic hatred, which inhibits free expression in the election. We are trying to help to combat this. We are working on a programme to encourage journalists to retain independence and to report accurately during the election campaign. Those issues are reflected in all our dealings with the authorities in the DRC.
	The third pillar of our action, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and the right reverend Prelate, has been action to bring to justice those carrying out abuses. It is always difficult to strike the right balance between peace and stability on one side and justice on the other. Last week, we saw a major step forward with the transfer of Thomas Lubanga to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We shall continue to pursue war criminals, as we intend that MONUC will do so. The UK has been a strong supporter of the ICC, and it is our obligation. Thomas Lubanga's arrest and surrender sends a strong signal throughout the region that those who carry out human rights abuses will one day face justice. The ICC has far more to do. We shall assist it in doing so.
	In parallel to ICC action, we also need to help the Congolese strengthen their own justice system across the board. There is fundamental work involving prisons, police, the judiciary and a neutral supreme court. Good progress is being made on reforming and retraining the police, which the UK has supported. We have an EU police training and mentoring mission (EUPol), which the Congolese have welcomed. The UK is involved in a programme to train judges to run mobile courts in some of the provinces across the DRC. It means that many more in local communities will have access to justice that is consistent with proper, national standards. That has begun to replace the arbitrary justice meted out throughout the war. But there is still a long way to go. With our help, we believe that we can make the changes. I do not know whether we can change minds. Mind-shift is always difficult. But the practicalities may be the basis for changing people's minds.
	MONUC has been described to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about MONUC forces. No decisions have yet been reached within the EU on the precise number or deployment, although discussions continue on those fronts. The internal discussion so far, and consultations with the Congolese and UN, suggest that the force will comprise a pre-deployment of 400 troops in Kinshasa with the remainder, as the noble Lord said, over the horizon on standby. The aim at this stage is to retain as much flexibility as possible. Kinshasa can be a very combustible town. If it is in a reasonably good state, the prospects of other people being deployed elsewhere become correspondingly higher. The EU forces will not come under the command of MONUC or its commander in the east.
	We shall continue to look at the cluster principle being deployed in Uganda. However, as I said in the case of Uganda, it is very early to know whether it is yet fully working. We are playing a leading role in security sector reform in the DRC. EUSEC, the EU's mission, is playing the co-ordinating role for international community support for security efforts. We have experts in this mission. We also have experts supporting the European and MONUC missions, although we do not have troops on the ground.
	The vote lists are now closed. The logistics are too difficult to get the systems at this stage up and running outside the DRC. We are satisfied with the registration process. We believe that, although it has been slower in one or two provinces because of technical problems, none the less the registration systems have worked fairly well.
	We take seriously the allegations of sexual exploitation by MONUC. In the UN a special committee on peacekeeping is looking at the issue. It is also true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, that we must do a great deal of this work with the local and national organisations in the DRC. I, too, have looked at SOS Children. The word "unique" was used. It is a remarkable project and one which I highly commend to your Lordships.
	There have been a great many other questions. My noble friend Lord Giddens raised avian influenza. There have been several suspected cases of wild and domestic birds dying of avian influenza in the DRC. The samples from some birds have been sent to South Africa for testing. The Congolese Government have reported that the results were negative. Neither the WHO nor the Congolese Government have been able to confirm whether avian flu is in fact currently present, but we will keep the House fully informed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about Rwanda and relations with some other countries. We emphasise to those countries that there must be no external support for the Congolese armed groups that are disrupting the peace process. The DRC must take action to deal with armed groups. We will support the US-facilitated tripartite-plus commission, which is aiming to bring Ugandan, Rwandan, Burundian and Congolese Foreign Ministers together to ensure that there is no crossover of such forces and assistance. I cannot tell your Lordships that it will work perfectly, but we will work at it.
	As every contributor to the debate has said, we are talking of a country blighted by a history of murder, war, rape, rampant theft, poverty, hunger and disease but that is now making some progress towards a different state of affairs. It is a terrible history; the advances are slow; and there are many setbacks. It is not like any area in which we normally think of the conduct of normal democratic life. It is not Orpington, Winchester or Bolton. But we are working at it, because it is a matter of global concern.
	I know that every noble Lord will join me in expressing a sincere desire to see the future of the DRC and of the Congolese people a great deal brighter than it has been. They have suffered long enough. We must end the brutal and repressive regimes, civil war and corruption. The rape and violence must stop. Impunity must end. Security Council Resolution 1493 must be respected. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly demands, the population as a whole, rather than an elite few, must benefit from the huge wealth and natural resources.
	The bits of the jigsaw that we need are there. The framework for peace is potentially there. The democratic elections are just around the corner. We must keep that process on track day by day, as we are trying to do with the leaders of some of the contending factions, on the phone and in person, just trying to make sure that peace lasts long enough to ensure that the election is successful. Through the expertise and finance that we are providing, we hope that we can give the Congolese the tools to do the job.
	The situation is incredibly fragile. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. We have a lot of work to do over the coming months and years, but I suspect that there may not be another chance for decades to come if we do not get it right this time. The international community and Congolese politicians owe it to the people of the country to seize the opportunity in this huge country for a future of peace, prosperity, democracy and justice. That is the aim of the Government; I believe that it is the aim of the whole House. We do not think that there is any difference between any of us about that. We cannot let it fall back.
	I have described a programme and the immediate funding. That is all aimed at that purpose: we must not let it fall back, nor rest until we have achieved the objectives that we have set out.

Monday, 27 March 2006.